>>531206291
2 The government is, in fact, in a position to provide dignified subsistence at least in most or all OECD countries but the government has not done so in most-perhaps even all OECD countries.

3 Where A) the government has the means to provide dignified subsistence but has not done so, and B) The government cannot establish, to the standard of criminal proof, that an act of theft was not an attempt to obtain the means necessary for a dignified life, then except in special circumstances (special circumstances like cruelty in the commission of the theft or a target known to be especially vulnerable) the government cannot legitimately convict anyone of theft. In this narrow sense- that the government may not morally convict- there is thus a right to steal to achieve dignified subsistence.

I take this to establish, in some sense, a right to steal to achieve dignified subsistence. I do not regard this right as exhausting all cases the right to steal. For example, you can steal a lifesaver to throw into the water when someone is drowning. I’m simply outlining a narrowly defined but all too common case where such a right to steal exists.

A few restrictions on this right are worth being clear on:

>>531206348
A) The theft must be proportional to the need.

B) The theft must be non-violent.

C) The theft must be from someone who clearly has a lesser need of the thing than oneself, and if possible, a much lesser need.

D) The theft must not be more cruel, destructive, or disruptive than it needs to be.

We will refer to theft to achieve dignity which meets the above conditions as TAD. For some, the legitimacy of TAD will be immediately clear, for others the very proposition is horrifying. I will give my core argument below, after some preliminaries

Commonplace necessity.

Let us first establish that it is relevant in the sense that there are people who have no choice but to steal or face indignity. Personally I’m shocked anyone could doubt the existence of such a condition, but it seems some do.

Here are some pretty undeniable examples of people who have no legal possibility for dignity. We can infer this from their revealed reference to die, rather than continuing to live in poverty. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/may/11/canada-cases-right-to-die-laws

Plainly, if stealing enabled them to achieve a dignified life, and they did so in a way that respected the conditions I outlined, it would fall under TAD.

>>531206382
I could go on about this far more, but there are plenty of people who due to disabilities, children, or even a simple run of bad luck, face homelessness and or hunger. Some of these people become thieves even habitual thieves. Anyone who believes that our spotty social welfare system lines up in such a way that no one is left with nothing despite their reasonable efforts believes in magic. If you’ve ever had to move back into your parent’s house, there’s a good chance that you avoided this category only by virtue of having living parents with whom you have a good relationship.

Why believe in a right to access dignified subsistence?

Why do I think that people have a right to dignified subsistence when it is possible to provide them with such?

It’s worth being exceedingly clear that when the government doesn’t provide access to dignified subsistence for everyone, this is an act, not an omission on its part. The state, through its laws and enforcements, creates the order of property rights and the economic order generally- the whole thing runs on their legal software and military and police hardware. To the extent that someone is left out, that is through the positive action of the state in the assignment of those rights. The state’s mistake isn’t analogous to a failure of charity, it’s morally more like a choice to exile someone to a barren wilderness.

I’m a consequentialist, so my main reason for thinking there is a right to dignified subsistence is because, as a principle, it would maximize human welfare, which is an important component of the good as I see it. Thus I think the government should provide the means to dignified subsistence.

>>531206442
If I were not a consequentialist though, I would look at society through the lens of a social contract. People give up an enormous amount when they enter society, and some people gain an enormous amount from that agreement. Especially when we consider that before the state, no one could claim property and wealth on the scale, and with the security, that they do. Property rights themselves are a massive imposition on our freedom, we are forbidden the right to touch, use, or walk upon most of the world. To consult my favorite academic paper of all time Coercion and Distribution in a Supposedly Non-Coercive State:

>What is the government doing when it protects a property right"? Passively, it is abstaining from interference with the owner when he deals with the thing owned; actively, it is forcing the non-owner to desist from handling it, unless the owner consents. Yet Mr. Carver would have it that the government is merely preventing the non-owner from using force against the owner. This explanation is obviously at variance with the facts-for the non-owner is forbidden to handle the owner's property even where his handling of it involves no violence or force whatever

>>531206505
The destitute person is like a sailor who, surrounded by water, finds he has not a drop to drink. Only the problem is not that the water is salty, it’s that everything around him has been tied by an invisible thread to an owner by the state’s law and force. Poverty amid plenty.

When you look at the world as a series of decisions about property assignment, market design, etc. etc. the nature of destitution as a form of internal exile becomes very clear. The fact that the state allows the transmission of rights by markets, markets which it effectively designs, maintains, and defends, is not particularly relevant. The state chooses the broad outlines of possession and dispossession, actively defends the existing order, and has the power to change it ad libitum. Certainly, the state is restricted by economic tendencies and laws, but not to such a degree that it would be impossible to guarantee decent subsistence.

While one could argue the details in several ways I don’t think the social contract is a good enough deal if some people have fabulous wealth, often for nebulous reasons with little to do with their merit, but the contractually established state chooses to deny the destitute access to the things needed for dignified survival. The destitute don’t have to be irrational to reject the imposition of that contract. Ending up like the sailor from The Rime of the Ancient Mariner, surrounded by untouchable plenty, isn’t good enough. A contract forced on people that’s not in their best interests is extortion.

But what if one were to respond ‘The social contract isn’t great for people who can’t secure dignified subsistence, but if they’re not literally dead, it’s still better than a state of nature.”

To this, I would reply:

>>531206574
1 It’s not clear to me that if you put a button in front of a person they can press- and if they press it society will collapse into anarchy and we will roll the dice on building a new one- they wouldn’t be better off pressing it if they are destitute.

2 Even if would be better off not pushing that button, a contractual arrangement that -very avoidably- puts some people in opulence and some people in marginal squalor is indecent, and it is unjust to expect people to accept it, and unreasonable to enforce it. Remember, the distribution of property and the rules for rearranging distribution are part of the contract.

An acquaintance of mine at Sydney Uni is interested in ‘virtue politics’. Here, I think, the case is very clear. A virtuous polity simply does not create economic conditions under which some people lack dignity. It’s a violation of both justice and compassion, perhaps the two most fundamental political virtues. To the extent the state puts people in a poverty trap, it undermines not only its institutional virtue, but the individual virtue of everyone directly involved, and even, to a degree, all of its citizens.

Why believe that the state has no right to punish us for stealing if we do so to achieve dignified subsistence?

But one could maintain that while the state is required to give me the means of a dignified life if they don’t, you have no individual recourse, and the state can legitimately punish you for trying to seize them for yourself.

The question of whether you have a moral right to individual recourse is interesting (I think yes), but it’s not the one I’ll get into directly here. Instead, I want to concern myself with the question. Does the state have a right to punish you for stealing under such conditions?

>>531206649
Here, I want to make an appeal to ethical intuition. While the state is failing its obligations to me, if I’ve taken non-violent and proportional action to redress that, meeting the conditions I described above, and that action is necessary to secure a dignified existence, it would seem extraordinarily cruel and inequitable for the government to prosecute me while it is not keeping its end of the bargain, and I am acting out of compulsion.

This is because, as a general principle:

1 If A wrongs B

2 B wrongs C to correct the effects of A’s wrong against B.

3 And B’s wrong is less than A’s wrong.

4 Then A does not have moral standing to punish B for B’s wrong against C.

It is difficult for me to think of circumstances in which this is not true. The only cases I can think of are those in which the punishment of B is in B’s own best interests.

Call A Alice and B Bob. Why think that A’s wrong is greater than B’s wrong?

Keep in mind that we have constrained TAD with several conditions. To repeat:

A) The theft must be proportional to the need.

B) The theft must be non-violent.

C) The theft must be from someone who clearly has a lesser need of the thing than oneself, and if possible, a much lesser need.

D) The theft must not be more cruel, destructive or disruptive than it needs to be.

>>531206780
By contrast, to such a theft government’s action in creating a distribution which unjustly excludes the thief is: 1. Unforced by the circumstances. 2. More harmful to B than B’s actions are to C. To be clear, we are not conceding that TAD is morally wrong, only that if it is morally wrong, it is a less grave wrong than the government’s distributive wrong against the thief.

What about the argument that theft is uniquely corrosive to the social fabric? This argument cuts both ways because A) Poverty is also uniquely corrosive to the social fabric and B) Poverty causes theft. These both go on the government’s side of the ledger.

But there’s another problem with punishment in these circumstances, beyond its intrinsic repugnance.

Suppose A’s harm against B is habitual, as the state’s harm of poverty against the poor is. She does it all the time- as the government reinforces existing property relations all the time. Now she comes to consider whether or not to punish B. Either:

1 She does so without ceasing her habitual harming of B.

2 Or she does so while continuing her habitual harming of B.

If 1. then there is a clear alternative, and clearly preferable alternative- now that she has changed her practices, forgive Bob, using the change of her practices as an opportunity for a clean slate, but making it clear that further infractions will be punished. Punishing given such an alternative seems clearly morally inferior.

If 2. then Alice is laughably compromised. Not only was her wrong against Bob the cause of her actions, she could not even bring herself to stop her harm.

In either case, Alice’s action in punishing despite her own habitual wrong looks even more repugnant than the base case of A punishing B we described earlier.

>>531206917
Our society can ensure there is zero involuntary poverty- for example, by acting as an employer of last resort. We have not done so and this is a titanic crime.

You don’t have to be a Rawlsian to think it is a dreadful wrong to force people to obey the rules of a society without caring about them enough to ensure they have access to a decent life. If we do not care about someone living in our society enough to ensure they do not go without the means of life through no fault of their own, then it’s frankly indecent to think we have the moral high ground to tell them what to do. However, this is especially true when it comes to taking what they need to live.

I want to make my opposition to this grotesque order plain and to urge any reader who finds themselves on a jury to consider these arguments. We should put pressure on the government by trying to prevent it from enforcing an unjust order.

>>531206988
I wanted to make a few points that, in hindsight, weren’t clear enough.

I want to drive home the point that this is a strategy. If we can get lots of people to agree that stealing is valid in these circumstances, if we can create a culture of skepticism around theft prosecutions where TADS is possibly the reason, then that puts pressure on the government to create alternatives to poverty. This isn’t just an abstract moral point, it’s a program to pressure the government to change its ways, a program you can join in. It is not an attempt to promote theft either, in a way it is the opposite- it is an attempt to create a society in which morally justified theft doesn’t exist or is extremely rare because everyone can access a dignified existence. A state of affairs where most of the public agrees that a lot of thefts are morally valid is unsustainable, so adopting this belief can be a way to try to force the government to mend its ways.

Finally, I don’t necessarily support job guarantee policies (or oppose them). It’s just an example of a scheme for abolishing involuntary poverty. Many others are possible.

In defence of freeriding on public transport (if you're poor)

1 Twitter is getting very agitated again about whether or not it is moral to freeride on public transport. For many people, in my view, it’s not immoral to illegally ride trains and buses for free. I myself am obliged to pay fares because I have a reasonably high income, but many people- and certainly anyone who could be described as poor have the right not to pay. Indeed, not paying may even be mildly praiseworthy as a form of sticking up for oneself.

2 The situation ex ante: Most people think of income and distribution like this. There is a distribution. The government then intervenes in the distribution to adjust it. In some sense, the prior distribution is just- maybe defeasibly so- but it forms a normative baseline against which any alternative distribution should be judged.

>>531207134
3 This “prior distribution” is a mirage. What looks like a natural, pre-political pattern of holdings is in fact constituted by law and politics at every seam: property is a bundle of legally defined claims (use, exclusion, transfer), contracts are enforceable only because a court stands ready to back them, corporations exist only because statute grants limited liability, wages are what they are only because labour law, migration rules, zoning, IP, bankruptcy, insurance regulation, central-bank policy and public infrastructure set the feasible bargains. As Murphy and Nagel insist, there is no morally privileged “pre-tax” income waiting out there in nature; tax and transfer are part of the same institutional scheme that makes any income possible in the first place- without government action we’d all hold far less, and hold it far less securely. Change the background rules—minimum wage, tenancy law, patent scope, tort standards, policing priorities, road pricing—and you change “market” outcomes before a tax is ever levied. So the right baseline for judgment is not a fictional pre-government distribution but the justice of the whole scheme of property and finance that we collectively enforce. Once we see that, fare collection is not a neutral afterthought layered atop some independent entitlement of transit agencies to cash; it is one small parameter inside a coercively maintained architecture of ownership that predictably manufactures winners and losers. If that architecture leaves some without effective access to basic mobility, the complaint is not that they deviate from a pre-existing norm, but that the norm itself is already a political decision- and one that may be unjust.

>>531207222
4 In this sense, then, the government is responsible for the poverty of the poor. They’ve made- and continue to make- the decision that poor people should be poor in allocating property rights and establishing those rights in practice through the action of an armed body of men. There are no magic threads tying people to things- no labour mixed with the land or any such rubbish. There are only facts about positive law which declare C owns X, Y & Z, while D owns P, Q & R, and so on due to all sorts of accidents of history, past government policies, and yes- sometimes but only sometimes- past productivity. Now I think the decision that a certain person be poor as a matter of positive law is indefensible. It is a wrong against a person committed by the commonwealth.

5 Moreover, what is poverty? At least in our society it is not just, as is commonly thought, a situation of lacking things. It is, in a materially abundant society, the use of force to prevent access to the needed or desired things. As Gerry Cohen writes:

>>531207323
6
>Suppose that an able-bodied woman is too poor to visit her sister in Glasgow. She cannot save enough, from week to week, to buy her way there. If she attempts to board the train, she is consequently without the means to overcome the conductor’s prospective interference. Whether or not this woman should be said to have the ability to go to Glasgow, there is no deficiency in her ability to do so which restricts her independently of the interference that she faces. She is entirely capable of boarding the underground and of traversing the space that she must cross to reach the train. But she will be physically prevented from crossing that space, or physically ejected from the train. Or consider a moneyless woman who wants to pick up, and take home, a sweater on the counter at Selfridge’s. If she contrives to do so, she will be physically stopped outside Selfridge’s and the sweater will be removed. The only way you won’t be prevented from getting and using things that cost money in our society - which is to say: most things - is by offering money for them. So to lack money is to be liable to interference

>>531207358
7 Having, in distributing property rights, neglected certain people, the state then enforces their situation by physically, and through threat, preventing them from accessing the things they need.

8 The redress available to the poor: So why shouldn’t the poor person act to partially correct the active oppression of the government upon them by gate-jumping? All other things being equal, if someone wrongs you, you have the right to withhold payments from them in restitution. For example, if someone just broke my shin deliberately or negligently, and they’ve just finished mowing my lawn, I have no obligation to pay them until they’ve made restitution for breaking my shin.

9 But the even more fundamental perspective on it goes like this. The idea that you are ‘paying’ money to the government to ride the train is true, but not the most basic way of looking at it. The most basic way of looking at it is that the government is making a distributive decision to take a bit of money away from train-riders on a pro-rata basis and put the money elsewhere. This is functionally equivalent to a tax on transit users, which in turn is functionally equivalent to a government decision about the distribution of property rights. This distributive question is part of a system of distributive decisions which, taken in totality, elect that some people should be impoverished. Why cooperate in making the distribution (unjustly) worse for yourself, especially when it was already unjust, and this change is making it even more so?

>>531207431
10 Exploiting other transit riders: But aren’t poor free-riders still exploiting other train riders? Well, if poor free-riders are exploiting the other train riders, are seniors, and others entitled to free travel exploiting the other train riders? Perhaps you’re thinking no, because they have a legitimate excuse for riding free while poor people don’t- but that begs the question, doesn’t it? The question of whether poor free-riders have legitimate reasons is the whole topic of debate.

11 Moreover, trains are paid for by consolidated revenue like most things [and even when, formally, things are payed for through earmarked funds, this is often just an accounting myth]. Suppose this weren’t true. For example, suppose the government had pre-committed that 50% of the train budget had to come from tickets. To the degree that ticket take falls, other money input from the government would fall. That would be regrettable yes, but the fault would be the government’s.

12 Government’s budgetary problems: What if, in a general sense, not paying your fares means that the government ‘no longer has enough money’ for trains or buses other things? After all, aren’t governments already in deficit in many places? The flipside to the claim that some people are unfairly treated in the economy as presently run is that other people should be paying more. The government should be collecting additional money from the top 30% or so of the population, and using land taxes, progressive consumption taxes etc. to keep output high while increasing tax takings. [The fantasy that 100% of the gap can be funded by the top 0.1% is just that, a fantasy- but that’s another essay]. To the extent the government won’t adequately fund itself to meet its current legal obligations, not to mention its full range of ethical obligations- that’s on the government.

File: 1768821705806738m.jpg (172 KB, 776x1024)

172 KB JPG

I'm not reading any of this

>>531207534
13 But, you say, raising taxes is politically infeasiable. Maybe, but if so that’s the public’s fault. The government in a democratic society doesn’t wash away sin by saying ‘we’re doing it because the public’ demands it. At very most, this partially shifts the blame for the government’s blameworthy actions from politicians to a section of the public. I’m not going to excoriate the freeriding poor because lawyers, doctors and middle managers refuse any form of funding except soaking the already destitute.

14 Duty to obey the law?: What about the duty to obey the law? If you really, truly, believe that there is a general duty to obey the law, I have little objection to give against you- at least any that I can pursue in the constraints of length here. However, very few people, I think, actually believe there is a duty to obey the law. The same people who say this commit minor crimes all the time. Perhaps what you’re thinking is that the laws I break are stupid laws, and the law that says you have to pay for your train ticket is a good one- but that begs the question doesn’t it?

>>531207580
15 Moreover, the system of economic laws that impoverishes the poor, treated as a whole, is not a small matter. It is, in my estimation, every bit as serious a wrong as, say, segregation. Thus, even if there are reasonably strong but defeasible reasons to obey the law under ‘normal’ circumstances, there is a good chance they don’t apply here.

16 But how will the service pay for itself?: A lot of people have an intuition that “every tub should stand on its own bottom”- the train service should ‘pay for itself’- if it cannot effectively collect fees, it will fail at this task. This argument ignores one of the main advantages of the government as an owner of utilities, viz, since the government- and the people who elect it- benefit from total social wealth, the government has the option to operate utilities in a way that maximises social wealth within the framework of a just distribution. Given positive externalities to riding the train, and a zero marginal cost for an additional rider in most cases, the government has an incentive to maximise public transport usage. Running it so that it pays for itself in isolation is not a concern.

17 The impositions our cities impose on those who cannot afford, or otherwise drive, a car: There’s another reason that people without much money should be allowed to ride for free. We’ve constructed cities in such a way that it is almost impossible to walk around in many areas, even more so in the USA than in other places. This is a deliberate, architectural choice. We have actively deprived people of the ability to get around their home city- and that’s a wrong against them in my book. Letting people too poor to afford a car get about by bus, train, and tram is simply restitution for the way we’ve designed our cities.

>>531207664
18 Keeping the poor out?: What about the increasingly popular argument that we need to keep poor people off the train or bus because they’re disruptive and they’ll scare other people away. Putting in place a fee keeps poor people away and that’s why fees should be upheld, by force if necessary? First of all, I’m a little doubtful. I live in a city where tram and bus fares are not really enforced- I have literally never seen an effort at enforcement in my hundreds of rides. Frankly, I haven’t noticed a superabundance of violence or chaos on the bus. But maybe this is because I live in Australia, not America.

19 The bigger problem with this argument is that it is simply not acceptable- it is corrosive to the soul of a society- to try to manage its problems by stopping poor people from moving around because they are expected to be more likely to be dangerous. It is a form of socioeconomic segregationism. If there really is some crisis of public order on buses and trains, and something really must be done, the more moral way to deal with it like housing the homeless, funding mental health- most especially for schizophrenic people and others with psychosis, more policing and police presence and social work.

this nigga in here talking to themselves

File: 1677343166875491.png (73 KB, 1200x1200)

73 KB PNG

>THIS ONE TIME, I GOT CAUGHT STEALING TV'S FROM RICH PEOPLE'S HOUSES
>THEN I GOT CAUGHT
>NOW I JUST THINK STEALIN' IS OK BECAUSE WHAT WHITES DO TO BLACKS
ok Tyrone.

>>531207715
20 High trust: What about the argument that seeing people not paying fares is corrosive to the spirit? We see it happen, and we’re filled with distrust and resentment. I guess there’s maybe something to this, but why does the solution have to be cracking down on non-fare payers, instead of creating provisions for poor people to ride for free- or better yet, correct the maldistribution which creates poor people in the first place.

21 Don’t you want a high-trust society? Sure. But who says the way to achieve that is conformity with the current laws? Indeed, if the current laws are unjust, they condemn us to a permanent equilibrium and opposing them is a positive good. Freeriding by the poor is not an act of defection against a cooperating society- it is a response to acts of bastardry by the government against them.

>>531207730
I am a white man

>>531207793
spiritually
NO.

>>531206291
Based. Stealing under the current system is moral and just.

>>531207959
Call it reparations for being circumcised as a baby boy.

Anti bank robbery shills can only argue with pilpul

>>531206291
>as an employer of last resort.
Extremely anti-semitic, government is only supposed to help lenders as the lender of last resort.

File: 1771360756201104.png (1.52 MB, 1024x1024)

1.52 MB PNG

>>531206291
>Stealing is sometimes a right
a right to someone else's life?

>>531208098
I forgot they’re only supposed to bail out Wall Street and israel

>>531208063
>Call it reparations for being circumcised as a baby boy.
I have many more greivances, but this is certainly one of them.

>>531206348
>For example, you can steal a lifesaver to throw into the water when someone is drowning.
You know I never thought about it that way, but nobody would ever prosecute in that case, even if it wasn't "your" lifesaver ring to throw. So there is a de facto right to steal in many cases. Like if I was in a bar and a fire broke out, and I jumped behind the counter to grab the bar's fire extinguisher, nobody minds that.

>>531208204
>printing money in the basement is only okay when the government does it to give more weapons to Israel. If you print money you’re a criminal

>>531206291
Stealing bread means "bread", nothing fancy. Also, end of day food waste should be fair game.

File: Goop.mp4 (2.77 MB, 576x1024)

2.77 MB MP4

>>531208555
Stores pour bleach on food before putting it in the dumpster. GDP MUST GO UP! BOOMERS STOCK PORTFOLIOS MUST INCREASE!

They own literally everything.
You legally can not just go into a forest and build a house and living in it for years they will come for you.
Even worse if you are not living alone they will come for you sooner

They literally own everything

>>531206291
Don't be so pessimistic either. Life is going to get eminently more affordable. Tech advances. When it rains it pours.

>>531206291
So let me explain why the bots want you to hate the poor weakling trannies who are easy targets.
1. Donald Trump knows your wallets are a bit low because of the oil prices.
2. Donald Trump is selling oil and needs your money.
3. Donald Trump knows you hate trannies.

Pretty much part of Donald's backstab masterplan and it will work too.

>>531208837
I empathize. That's pretty shit.

>>531208975
Is anyone surprised? Nick Fuentes predicted literally everything in this truth post years ago.
Also trump has always supported infant genital mutilation on baby boys, Zionists have literally donated hundreds of millions of dollars to him.

>>531208920
More technology = more mass surveillance and enslavement.

Technological advances has made phones cheaper yes BUT IT HAS NOT DECREASED THE COST OF BUYING AND OWNING A HOUSE!!! TRUMP IS LITERALLY ON LIVE TELEVISION STATING
“I WANT TO KEEP PROPERTY VALUES AS HIGH AS POSSIBLE”

EVEN IF TECHNOLOGY FOR VERY CHEAP AND SAFE LEVITATING HOUSES IN THE SKY AND VERY CHEAP AND SAFE FLYING CARS EXISTED IT WOULD NOT MATTER BECAUSE THEY WOULD STILL BAN IT WITH LAWS AND ORDINANCES! THEY WOULD LIE AND SAY ITS FOR SAFETY OR ENVIRONMENTAL REASONS BUT THE REAL REASON IS JUST TO KEEP BOOMERS PROPERTY VALUES AND NET WORTHS AS HIGH AS POSSIBLE

ALMOST ALL POLITICIANS ARE LIKE THIS TRUMP IS JUST MORE HONEST ABOUT IT

You guys are faggots
If you soent as much time earning money as you did posting tl;dr faggotry, you would be doing just fine
Find a way to be more productive and less of a pedophile nigger faggot

File: LookAtThat.jpg (42 KB, 415x540)

42 KB JPG

>>531208402
>The claim that the counterfeiting of counterfeit money is not
itself illegitimate is based on our understanding that such an
activity is identical in form with stealing from a thief. The original dictionary definition of counterfeiting spoke of “fabricating
without right,” and of “passing the false copy for genuine or
original.” But if what is being copied is itself counterfeit, then
the counterfeiter is not passing the false copy for genuine. He is
only passing off (another) false copy. And if fabricating without
right means passing something off as genuine, then our counterfeiter is not fabricating without right, for he is not in fact trying
to pass something as genuine—he is only trying to pass his
handiwork as a copy of a counterfeit.
The money which our counterfeiter is copying is itself counterfeit. It is made by a nonprivate counterfeiter—the government.
This is a serious charge, and is not made lightly. Unappetizing though it may be, the fact is that governments everywhere
make counterfeits of real money—gold and silver. Virtually all
governments then forbid the use of real money and allow only
the use of the counterfeits they fabricate. This is equivalent to a
private enterprise counterfeiter not only copying the money in
circulation, but also preventing and prohibiting the circulation
of the “legal” money
>https://cdn.mises.org/Defending_the_Undefendable_2018.pdf
You can't 'print more money' but you can counterfeit more counterfeited 'money'

>>531209537
>just work harder

To get rich you need
>to get lucky
>to take risks
>to have zero morals
>(optional) hard work

File: DogTemple.jpg (82 KB, 408x612)

82 KB JPG

>>531208555
>Stealing bread means
https://youtu.be/VUb450Alpps